Privacy and the State

[amateur51]

Quality, amsey, not Quantity!

Blair finally got the measure of you liberal-commie apologists. and how!

An interesting speculation on time-travel, but then as naught compared to some of the other guff some people choose to believe.

[Mr Pee]

Another publicity stunt by MI5:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24721737

[scottycelt]

What do you think his opinion of 21st century state surveillance would have been?

Well he knew what was coming, long before his peers, so I doubt he'd have been that surprised?

I suspect, though, when it came to the crunch he would have decided to remain in freedom in a capitalist system in order to continue his essay-writing rather than opt for a totalitarian communist regime where undoubtedly he would have ended up in prison or even worse?

[Richard Barrett]

I doubt that he'd have accepted it as blithely as you do.

[ahinton]

Another publicity stunt by MI5:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24721737

So? OK, there have been arrests in that foreign land known to some as pre-independence Scotland. The five have yet to be charged, tried and convicted but, even if all three occur justly, what does that prove? That there are terrorists about. Well, whoopty-doo! Quelle surprise! (Mind you, we are talking Scotland here!).

I didn't see any specific reference to "MI5", so you're presumably making that one up. What I did read, however, was that 'After the operation last week, Police Scotland said it had focused on the "activities of individuals sympathetic to dissident Republicanism but who are not affiliated to any specific group"'. Any specific group such as SNP, for example? I mean, there's no such organisation as the Scottish Defence League, is there?

Anyway, there would appear to be some here whose vast knowledge, experience and understanding of how the security services operate who are obviously both au fait and comfortable with the fact that, had NSA not diligently monitored squillions of telephone calls in Germany, France and Spain, these arrests would never have been made and we'd all be far more fearful of the risk of terrorist activity in Scotland than we need to be now; such folk can accordingly sleep at night on their pillows of smug self-satisfied complacency.

Seriously - did anyone suggest that there's no such thing as terrorism, or the risk thereof? But then who needs relevance, pertinence and proportionality (let alone logical thought) when such an incident can find itself described as "another publicity stunt by MI5"?!

[Richard Barrett]

So, according to Scottycelt apparently, George Orwell would have been OK with NSA/GCHQ surveillance, because it's better than living under communism. However, as he has helpfully pointed out, the Soviet regime no longer exists, so that choice doesn't really exist either. Now I rather think that the idea that Orwell, were he alive today, would be anything but appalled by the revelations about all this surveillance, having of course written of their inhumanity in Nineteen Eighty-Four, is somewhat deluded. But maybe Orwell, if he were alive today, would also have been brainwashed into complacency, I wonder if that's what Scottycelt means.

Meanwhile, US senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said this yesterday: It is abundantly clear that a total review of all intelligence programs is necessary so that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are fully informed as to what is actually being carried out by the intelligence community (...) Unlike NSA's collection of phone records under a court order, it is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed. (...) With respect to NSA collection of intelligence on leaders of US allies – including France, Spain, Mexico and Germany – let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed.

On the other hand, David Cameron, instead of addressing the issues, is still hammering away at the messenger: if they [newspapers such as the Guardian] don't demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act. By which he presumably means he'll put gagging orders on them, although of course news outlets in other countries which are easily accessible in the UK, such as the Washington Post, will go on publishing the disclosures, making Cameron look a bigger fool than he already does.

[ahinton]

So, according to Scottycelt apparently, George Orwell would have been OK with NSA/GCHQ surveillance, because it's better than living under communism. However, as he has helpfully pointed out, the Soviet regime no longer exists, so that choice doesn't really exist either. Now I rather think that the idea that Orwell, were he alive today, would be anything but appalled by the revelations about all this surveillance, having of course written of their inhumanity in Nineteen Eighty-Four, is somewhat deluded. But maybe Orwell, if he were alive today, would also have been brainwashed into complacency, I wonder if that's what Scottycelt means.

Meanwhile, US senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said this yesterday: It is abundantly clear that a total review of all intelligence programs is necessary so that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are fully informed as to what is actually being carried out by the intelligence community (...) Unlike NSA's collection of phone records under a court order, it is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed. (...) With respect to NSA collection of intelligence on leaders of US allies – including France, Spain, Mexico and Germany – let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed.

On the other hand, David Cameron, instead of addressing the issues, is still hammering away at the messenger: if they [newspapers such as the Guardian] don't demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act. By which he presumably means he'll put gagging orders on them, although of course news outlets in other countries which are easily accessible in the UK, such as the Washington Post, will go on publishing the disclosures, making Cameron look a bigger fool than he already does.

Elegantly put indeed! Somehow I suspect that Orwell might just have been a tiny bit less susceptible to being brainwashed than scotty, but since only one of them is here to answer for himself, we'll havfe to leave that one open to speculation, I suppose.

Anyway, one of the dafter things about the so-called official UK response that you mention in your last paragraph is that, after all, newspapers such as The Guardian ARE demonstrating the very social responsibility of whose lack Mr Cameron accuses them and, in the face of reactions such as his, are indeed doing so with no small amount of courage and determination. Does DC really think that he knows better than Ms Feinstein? Does he believe that she's talking out her backside? Has he even heard or read what you quote from her above? That a British Prime Minister can openly demonstrate so cavalier an attitude to the day-to-day operations of the security services as to imply endorsement of the notion that those responsbile for them need not be accountable to the UK equivalent (if any) of the US Senate Intelligence Committee is surely as deplorable and worrying as it is sadly only to be expected of this particular one.

Ms Feinstein's remarks are salient and salutary indeed (and thank you for elevating the discussion by quoting them here); it will be interesting to see what if any additional scrutiny of NSA's operations might arise as a direct consequence of them. (I'm not so sure that every US citizen would regard Mexico as an ally, though, but that's beside the point, really!)...

[scottycelt]

It appears to have wholly escaped Mr Barrett and his ever-faithful batman, ahinton, that whilst communism may have been well-nigh vanquished as a serious rival to capitalism there is a 'new' threat, probably even more dangerous to the lives of innocent, law-abiding citizens all over the world.

That, of course, is widely known as random TERRORISM. I'm flattered that I'm now mentioned in the same breath as George Orwell but, really, I very much doubt that I'm quite in his perceptive league and, without meaning to be too unkind to members, I very much doubt that anybody else here is either!

Only an idiot would welcome the idea of surveillance just like only an idiot would like the idea of war. However, when faced with a serious threat sometimes both become necessary. I suspect the perceptive Orwell may well have understood that though none of us really knows what he would have thought about it. He merely observed the way things were going when some of his peers were calling Stalin 'Uncle Joe' and the rest is history.

Back to the main topic. Some members seem appalled by the alleged US tapping of the mobile phone calls of friendly world leaders. I've already said I've no idea why the American security services thought this necessary but I doubt they are alone in this sort of 'dirty tricks' department. I also said I was not particularly surprised. We cannot turn the clock back to an era when mobile phones didn't exist never mind put a stop to the 'art' of phone-tapping. Such things are here to stay whether we like it or not. Of course spying can be combated which is precisely what I said the French, Germans and others should do, alongside any of their own spying and 'dirty-tricks' practices!

If a sense of realism and a call to combat phone-tapping is being 'complacent' then I must plead guilty. Meanwhile, the 'innocents' and 'non-complacents' can continue to blame the US and world capitalism for every shock-horror spying story they hear or read about in the media, apparently wholly oblivious to the much greater threats to their own lives and property that lie elsewhere.

[Mr Pee]

Seriously - did anyone suggest that there's no such thing as terrorism, or the risk thereof? But then who needs relevance, pertinence and proportionality (let alone logical thought) when such an incident can find itself described as "another publicity stunt by MI5"?!

Amateur, in hiw wierd topsy-turvy world where black is white, thinks the recent London terror arrests were all part of a PR offensive by MI5, something to do with justifying their existence in the hope of getting more funding from central government and making their new boss look good, or some such guff. So I dare say he thinks this is all part of the same exercise.

And I know the BBC don't mention MI5, but Sky News said the security services were involved, and it would, anyway, be rather odd if they weren't.

[ahinton]

It appears to have wholly escaped Mr Barrett and his ever-faithful batman, ahinton, that whilst communism may have been well-nigh vanquished as a serious rival to capitalism there is a 'new' threat, probably even more dangerous to the lives of innocent, law-abiding citizens all over the world.

That, of course, is widely known as random TERRORISM.

Goodness! Surely none of us here would have been aware of this without your having drawn it to our attentions, so the emphasis provided by your use of uppercase is all the more salutary!

Seriously, though - I do not "bat" for anyone, you as a Roman Catholic almost certainly have more "faith" than I do and very little "escapes" Mr Barrett, whose posts here demonstrate beyond all possible doubt that he has no need of a "batman". Far more importantly, your capacity for respective selective reading and ignoring of what happens not to suit what passes for your agenda is breathtaking. Did you read Ms Feinstein's remarks? Are you aware of her position? Are you going to ignore http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24719830, for example, in case it might not quite fit your world-view like a glove?

I'm flattered that I'm now mentioned in the same breath as George Orwell but, really, I very much doubt that I'm quite in his perceptive league and, without meaning to be too unkind to members, I very much doubt that anybody else here is either!

Your modesty and magninimity know no bounds, do they?!

Only an idiot would welcome the idea of surveillance just like only an idiot would like the idea of war. However, when faced with a serious threat sometimes both become necessary. I suspect the perceptive Orwell may well have understood that though none of us really knows what he would have thought about it. He merely observed the way things were going when some of his peers were calling Stalin 'Uncle Joe' and the rest is history.

And your answer as to the reasons why the widescale monitgoring of which US is accused is...? Your attitude seems to be that being faced with any kind of threat hands nations' secutiry services carte blanche to snnpop on whomsoever they please; just don't tell the President that it's happening and he won;t know. Well, he does now.

Back to the main topic. Some members seem appalled by the alleged US tapping of the mobile phone calls of friendly world leaders. I've already said I've no idea why the American security services thought this necessary but I doubt they are alone in this sort of 'dirty tricks' department. I also said I was not particularly surprised. We cannot turn the clock back to an era when mobile phones didn't exist never mind put a stop to the 'art' of phone-tapping. Such things are here to stay whether we like it or not. Of course spying can be combated which is precisely what I said the French, Germans and others should do, alongside any of their own spying and 'dirty-tricks' practices!

I'm no more surprised than you are and do not doubt, as you don't doubt, that US is far from alone in this kind of behaviour, but US almost certainly does far more of it than anyone else does. You wisely claim to have no idea why NSA did what it's accused of having done yet you remain content to be complacent by accepting that such behaviour "is here to stay" rather than needs to be very cerfeully and diligently monitored to ensure that it never gets out of hand.

If a sense of realism and a call to combat phone-tapping is being 'complacent' then I must plead guilty.

For that you might receive s shorter sentence, scotty.

Meanwhile, the 'innocents' and 'non-complacents' can continue to blame the US and world capitalism for every shock-horror spying story they hear or read about in the media, apparently wholly oblivious to the much greater threats to their own lives and property that lie elsewhere.

...while the rest of us who actually care about this kind of thing bemoan its uncontrolled and unjustifiable occurrence anywhere in the world, not just in US; these stories are not in any case "shock-horror" ones, since we all accept that such things do indeed happen, but whereas your acceptance of them is deliberately supine, that of others is mercifully anything but.

[Richard Barrett]

Some members seem appalled by the alleged US tapping of the mobile phone calls of friendly world leaders.

And, as I pointed out earlier, the chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee agrees with them.

What is "random" terrorism? Do you think people commit terrorist acts for no reason at all?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

And, as I pointed out earlier, the chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee agrees with them.

What is "random" terrorism? Do you think people commit terrorist acts for no reason at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror

The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear. It is practiced by extremist groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare. Terror on the other hand is practiced by governments and law enforcement officials, usually within the legal framework of the state.

You should read more widely than your usual left-wing pap.

[ahinton]

Amateur, in hiw wierd topsy-turvy world

Don't you mean "wired" in the present context?

where black is white, thinks the recent London terror arrests were all part of a PR offensive by MI5, something to do with justifying their existence in the hope of getting more funding from central government and making their new boss look good, or some such guff. So I dare say he thinks this is all part of the same exercise.

I'd not realised that am51 has appointed you as his spokesPeeson, so I am appropriately indebted to you for expressing his thoughts on his behalf.

And I know the BBC don't mention MI5, but Sky News said the security services were involved, and it would, anyway, be rather odd if they weren't.

Perhaps so - but then how do these isolated arrests stand in the overall world of government snooping, other than very disproportionately? HAs anyone yet stopped to think about the value for (taxpayers') money and the productivity and success rates of these security services in the context of their ability to protect the public from terrorism (or rather, as scotty puts it, TERRORISM)? And I've yet to hear NSA seeking to claim that those arrests would not even have been made at all had it not been for their persistence and diligence in monitoring Spanish, French, German et al phone calls; funny, that.

[ahinton]

And, as I pointed out earlier, the chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee agrees with them.

Ah, yes, she does and you did point it out but that's one of the bits that scotty evidently chose not to read!

What is "random" terrorism? Do you think people commit terrorist acts for no reason at all?

"Random" terrorism" sounds to me like a curious and bizarre blend of the worst kind of terrorism and the notion of "terrorism by accident", which it surely can't be, can it? I've never heard the phrase previously but, since scotty presumably knows what it means (if anyone does), perhaps he will do us all the courtesy of enlightening us on this and we must remain patient until he does so.

[scottycelt]

And, as I pointed out earlier, the chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee agrees with them.

What is "random" terrorism? Do you think people commit terrorist acts for no reason at all?

a) It is somewhat bizarre that you, of all members, are now pointing to the 'chair' of the US Senate Intelligence Committee to support your case! I've already mentioned the 'for naive public consumption' aspect. I'd have thought we might have agreed on that at least, especially when considering the source of the comments.

b) 'Random' in the sense that the victims are chosen at random, in tube stations, shopping-centres etc. Haven't you noticed that this has been happening all over the world for many years now? Doesn't even the Guardian report such things?